My method is to help your "adversary". The way I think about it is this: we can't obtain absolute truth, so we're always somewhat wrong; we have limited data and information, so we need to be able to consider what others have that we don't. Arguments can be both adversarial and cooperative, right?

If your goal is to seek truth, then you need to reframe the setting. It is not "I defend my position and they make their case", that is allowing yourself to change but framed to maintain your current belief. Sure, you have good reason to maintain your belief and I'm not saying you shouldn't hold this, but it should be a byproduct of seeking truth rather than the premise.

Just pick a position you feel strongly about and imagine how your world would change if it was false. How your relationships would change. How stupid your previous statements would be.

Pick anything. Climate change is a big one. I would definitely have to eat some chaff if it was shown to be false personally.